One of the prime concerns in Christian apologetics concerns suffering. In brief, if God is omnipotent, it would seem that he could eliminate suffering. Then, if compassionate, he would do so. Failing in this regard, it is argued that he lacks in one or both regards. Or simply does not exist. An over-simplification no doubt, but one that troubles many. In any case, inviting us to consider this matter at greater length.

(1) Suffering is a fact of life. As such, it serves as a corollary to pleasure. As if to suggest that they are commensurate: the greater the potential of one, the greater the potential of the other.

(2) Suffering is especially associated with life between paradise lost and regained. Suggesting to C. S. Lewis that we experience complex love, pertaining to the love of God expressed in context of a situation seriously compromised by sin.

(3) Suffering can serve a variety of constructive purposes, as when it primes us to be more available to persons in dire need. Or simply incite us to get our priorities in order, since it is not uncommonly the lesser good than the flagrant evil that keeps us from exploring the greater good. Which involves glorifying God and enjoying him forever.

(4) Suffering is tied into a conflict of cosmic proportions. Which leads us to conclude that it should be expected as a consequence. As such, it is analogous to the adversity and devastation we experience when caught up in armed conflict.

(5) Suffering alerts us to the brevity of life. So that as the grass of the field, we spring up only to shortly wither and die. Consequently, it serves as a reality check, other features notwithstanding.

(6) Suffering can result from indulgence. Reminding us of the need for moderation. Thus soliciting the sage caution concerning “too much of a good thing.”

(7) Suffering can likewise result from our efforts to excel in some regard. Accordingly, something we are willing to embrace so as to achieve our goals. Hence, while not desirable in itself, welcomed in context.

(8) Suffering is often inflicted by others. In terms of the adverse circumstances passed on from one generation to the next. Then compounded by adverse behavior of our contemporaries.

(9) Suffering can in some measure be avoided if proper precautions are taken. Failing to do so, we can expect matters to deteriorate. Not only for ourselves, but as noted above, for those we influence.

(10) Suffering can result from our efforts to do good. Since these may be misunderstood, or conflict with the agenda of others. In any case, since there is a risk involved in social engagement.

(11) Suffering can be used as a means of coercion. Accordingly, it appeals to those who wish to impose their will on others. As an indication of their inability or unwillingness to rely on persuasion.

(12) Suffering is graphically associated with crucifixion. Recalling Kazoh Kitamori’s observation: “God in pain is the God who resolves our human pain by his own. Jesus Christ is the Lord who heals our human wounds by his own (1 Peter 2:24)” (Theology of the Pain of God, p. 20).

(13) Suffering serves as a reminder to invest in eternity. Recalling a pertinent text, “I want to know the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead” (Phil. 3:10).

In greater detail, I authored Pain As a Means of Grace (Wipf & Stock). At the outset, it was noted: “Aristotle succinctly observed, ‘To perceive is to suffer’ (De Anima). Consequently, we must come to grips with pain if we are to negotiate life meaningfully.”